At best, racist....?

[teddyearp]

It becomes "State Press"... And, to be honest, it matters little how much "sponsorship" the prime minister gives, it's still "State Press"

No press organization can operate without revenue of some sort. You do know that our government 'sponsors' many press outlets here in the states via advertising dollars don't you? Think on that for a bit. . .

 

[Coyote]

I agree. I'm just explaining where my perspective comes from. Every country has the right to govern itself as it's people see's fit. I don't dispute that. I just think this new law is a bad idea given Israel's minorities and peculiar divisions of citizenship.

I disagree. It doesn't go against the constitutional law of Human freedom, life and dignity. It must go hand in hand with the previous basic law. If it went against it, of course I would agree it's awful. But honestly, if the social rights of Israeli minority can be kept, the objection will be purely out of populist and shallow reasons.

Which is exactly the case in here. Because who goes against that? Livni and Hetzog, both almost didn't cross the threashold of the voters' election, both dreaming of being the next PM. It's laughable. I didn't vote Netanyahu, I think he's bad for us, but it pisses me off the nonstopping attempt to cause a political crisis just to bring him down. It's horrible for the people of Israel, who voted fairly for who they wanted.

And it even more laughable that Tzipi Livni talked about democracy, when two weeks ago she voted for closing a free newspaper, "Israel Today". Isn't closing a newspaper out of political reasons, the core of anti-democracy? What's up with THAT crap?

I saw something about that - but what does it mean exactly?

They voted to close the newspaper "Israel HaYom," it was/is newspaper that is viewed as rightist, suiting the views of the Prime minister, in Israel some call it the "Bibiton", because it is sponsered directly by the Prime Minister, belongs to Sheldon Edelson.

It is also the only currently newspaper that is free no charge, while others- Yediot, Ma'ariv, and Ha'aretz, are to be paid for. For years, it was easy to get your hand on the newspapers, because they were delievered free in public places, and is one of the only high-published newspapers that is viewed as rightist.

Anyhow, they voted to make it "pay-per-view", and many criticized it. First, the parties that point out non-stop how expensive is that, living in Israel, vote to pay for free newspapers, it makes you raise an eyebrow. Second, those same parties cry about how Israel should be first thing first a democracy, but then go shutting mouths of the right, also questionable.

And last, it's a bummer, I liked the word puzzles, now I won't get those anymore...

I'm confused - aren't newspapers independent entities able to make their own financing decisions? We have a variety of paid for and free papers, for example - all kinds and the government has no influence on them in regards to cost or content. Left or right or middle of the road or whacko - there's something for everyone.

I'm not sure whatever the reason is, I just know that Netanyahu used to up till now "sponsor" the newspaper, and it was given free no charge in every public place. Now it won't happen, because the Knesset objects it being free, it has nothing to do with the newspaper's ability to stand independent or not.

We have National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting System which are publically funded and free to everyone. Rightwingers complain about it being too leftwing and often try to defund it. It sounds kind of like that is similar to the free newspapers you have maybe?

 

[Coyote]

I saw something about that - but what does it mean exactly?

They voted to close the newspaper "Israel HaYom," it was/is newspaper that is viewed as rightist, suiting the views of the Prime minister, in Israel some call it the "Bibiton", because it is sponsered directly by the Prime Minister, belongs to Sheldon Edelson.

It is also the only currently newspaper that is free no charge, while others- Yediot, Ma'ariv, and Ha'aretz, are to be paid for. For years, it was easy to get your hand on the newspapers, because they were delievered free in public places, and is one of the only high-published newspapers that is viewed as rightist.

Anyhow, they voted to make it "pay-per-view", and many criticized it. First, the parties that point out non-stop how expensive is that, living in Israel, vote to pay for free newspapers, it makes you raise an eyebrow. Second, those same parties cry about how Israel should be first thing first a democracy, but then go shutting mouths of the right, also questionable.

And last, it's a bummer, I liked the word puzzles, now I won't get those anymore...

I'm confused - aren't newspapers independent entities able to make their own financing decisions? We have a variety of paid for and free papers, for example - all kinds and the government has no influence on them in regards to cost or content. Left or right or middle of the road or whacko - there's something for everyone.

I'm not sure whatever the reason is, I just know that Netanyahu used to up till now "sponsor" the newspaper, and it was given free no charge in every public place. Now it won't happen, because the Knesset objects it being free, it has nothing to do with the newspaper's ability to stand independent or not.

I am totally against banning the 'Free Press'....

This, however, is a concern... "Netanyahu used to up till now "sponsor" the newspaper"

A prime minister of ANY country "sponsoring" a newspaper doesn't make it "Free Press"...

It becomes "State Press"... And, to be honest, it matters little how much "sponsorship" the prime minister gives, it's still "State Press"

I see your point. However, it still doesn't mean the public cannot relate to the "state press". And it still doesn't mean free speech isn't abused here. And those who abuse that free speech are also the ones who cry about Netanyahu going against democracy.

I see double standards here.

Personally - I have issues with government sponsorship of media...as opposed to public funding. But it's not as if Israel doesn't have a bunch of privately owned media outlets that provide the news so I'm not sure it's an issue. In many countries with state-owned media - the only legal media is what the state supports and there is heavy state censorship of media. But there are also lot of countries where there is state owned media alongside private media as well.

 

[Humanity]

I saw something about that - but what does it mean exactly?

They voted to close the newspaper "Israel HaYom," it was/is newspaper that is viewed as rightist, suiting the views of the Prime minister, in Israel some call it the "Bibiton", because it is sponsered directly by the Prime Minister, belongs to Sheldon Edelson.

It is also the only currently newspaper that is free no charge, while others- Yediot, Ma'ariv, and Ha'aretz, are to be paid for. For years, it was easy to get your hand on the newspapers, because they were delievered free in public places, and is one of the only high-published newspapers that is viewed as rightist.

Anyhow, they voted to make it "pay-per-view", and many criticized it. First, the parties that point out non-stop how expensive is that, living in Israel, vote to pay for free newspapers, it makes you raise an eyebrow. Second, those same parties cry about how Israel should be first thing first a democracy, but then go shutting mouths of the right, also questionable.

And last, it's a bummer, I liked the word puzzles, now I won't get those anymore...

I'm confused - aren't newspapers independent entities able to make their own financing decisions? We have a variety of paid for and free papers, for example - all kinds and the government has no influence on them in regards to cost or content. Left or right or middle of the road or whacko - there's something for everyone.

I'm not sure whatever the reason is, I just know that Netanyahu used to up till now "sponsor" the newspaper, and it was given free no charge in every public place. Now it won't happen, because the Knesset objects it being free, it has nothing to do with the newspaper's ability to stand independent or not.

I am totally against banning the 'Free Press'....

This, however, is a concern... "Netanyahu used to up till now "sponsor" the newspaper"

A prime minister of ANY country "sponsoring" a newspaper doesn't make it "Free Press"...

It becomes "State Press"... And, to be honest, it matters little how much "sponsorship" the prime minister gives, it's still "State Press"

I see your point. However, it still doesn't mean the public cannot relate to the "state press". And it still doesn't mean free speech isn't abused here. And those who abuse that free speech are also the ones who cry about Netanyahu going against democracy.

I see double standards here.

Maybe that, historically, is the issue, with "state press"!

"State Press" or, to cover ALL media "State Media" is NEVER good, under any regime!

No it doesn't mean the end to "free speech"...

What it does mean is that the media, a specific paper, IS controlled, by the government, to a greater or lesser extent....

 

[Beelzebub]

On September 15, 1935, the Nazi government passed two new racial laws at their annual NSDAP Reich Party Congress in Nuremberg, Germany. These two laws (the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law to Protect German Blood and Honor) became collectively known as the Nuremberg Laws. These laws took German citizenship away from Jews and outlawed both marriage and sex between Jews and non-Jews. Unlike historical antisemitism, the Nuremberg Laws defined Jewishness by heredity (race) rather than by practice (religion).

Shocking.

What kind of modern state could define a religious people this way?
And to put laws in place to give or take rights based on their presumed Jewishness or lack of it?

The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 - Nazi Laws Against Jews

There's more:

There were two major components to the Reich Citizenship Law. The first component stated that:

• Anyone who enjoys the protection of the Reich is considered to be a subject of it and is therefore obligated to the Reich.
• Nationality is determined by the Reich and state nationality laws.

Sounds like the claim of Israel that all Judaism belongs to Israel and all Jews are naturally citizens as soon as they arrive.

The Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor
The second law announced on September 15 was motivated by the Nazi’s desire to ensure the existence of a “pure” German nation for eternity. A major component of the law was that those with “German-related blood” were not allowed to marry Jews or have sexual relations with them. Marriages that had occurred prior to the passage of this law would remain in effect; however, German citizens were encouraged to divorce their existing Jewish partners. Only a few chose to do so.

Surely Israel doesn't do similar?
Jews, Christians and Muslims are free to marry in Israel without any interference or sanction from the state, no?

____________________________

It is looking very much like Israel law was lifted directly from the 1930's Nationality Laws.
Interesting.

 

[The Rabbi]

The PA doesn't actually rule anywhere. The number of Jews living in the Occupied Territories is as was stated. 400 thousand in the West Bank and 300 thousand in East Jerusalem.

You just contradicted your earlier post that theWest Bank was part of the PA.
You are also wrong. The PA controls part of the WB and all of Gaza.

Hamas is in Gaza and does not have any sovereignty as they do not control the land borders, territorial sea or air space. PA does not rule anything. The Occupied Territories are under martial law, by definition they are not ruled by a civil administration.

They show they have control of their airspace when they fire rockets at Israel and Egypt, and they show they have control over their territorial sea when the send out fishing boats to catch fish.

With every passing moon you become dumber Phoney...

Of all of your most recent posts THIS one has to be your biggest FAIL

I salute you Phoney for your constant source entertainment....

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything about the situation. That makes your posts explainable.

 

[Lipush]

On September 15, 1935, the Nazi government passed two new racial laws at their annual NSDAP Reich Party Congress in Nuremberg, Germany. These two laws (the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law to Protect German Blood and Honor) became collectively known as the Nuremberg Laws. These laws took German citizenship away from Jews and outlawed both marriage and sex between Jews and non-Jews. Unlike historical antisemitism, the Nuremberg Laws defined Jewishness by heredity (race) rather than by practice (religion).

Shocking.

What kind of modern state could define a religious people this way?
And to put laws in place to give or take rights based on their presumed Jewishness or lack of it?

The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 - Nazi Laws Against Jews

There's more:

There were two major components to the Reich Citizenship Law. The first component stated that:

• Anyone who enjoys the protection of the Reich is considered to be a subject of it and is therefore obligated to the Reich.
• Nationality is determined by the Reich and state nationality laws.

Sounds like the claim of Israel that all Judaism belongs to Israel and all Jews are naturally citizens as soon as they arrive.

The Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor
The second law announced on September 15 was motivated by the Nazi’s desire to ensure the existence of a “pure” German nation for eternity. A major component of the law was that those with “German-related blood” were not allowed to marry Jews or have sexual relations with them. Marriages that had occurred prior to the passage of this law would remain in effect; however, German citizens were encouraged to divorce their existing Jewish partners. Only a few chose to do so.

Surely Israel doesn't do similar?
Jews, Christians and Muslims are free to marry in Israel without any interference or sanction from the state, no?

____________________________

It is looking very much like Israel law was lifted directly from the 1930's Nationality Laws.
Interesting.

Wow, comparison to Nazi Germany.

How original

 

[Lipush]

I disagree. It doesn't go against the constitutional law of Human freedom, life and dignity. It must go hand in hand with the previous basic law. If it went against it, of course I would agree it's awful. But honestly, if the social rights of Israeli minority can be kept, the objection will be purely out of populist and shallow reasons.

Which is exactly the case in here. Because who goes against that? Livni and Hetzog, both almost didn't cross the threashold of the voters' election, both dreaming of being the next PM. It's laughable. I didn't vote Netanyahu, I think he's bad for us, but it pisses me off the nonstopping attempt to cause a political crisis just to bring him down. It's horrible for the people of Israel, who voted fairly for who they wanted.

And it even more laughable that Tzipi Livni talked about democracy, when two weeks ago she voted for closing a free newspaper, "Israel Today". Isn't closing a newspaper out of political reasons, the core of anti-democracy? What's up with THAT crap?

I saw something about that - but what does it mean exactly?

They voted to close the newspaper "Israel HaYom," it was/is newspaper that is viewed as rightist, suiting the views of the Prime minister, in Israel some call it the "Bibiton", because it is sponsered directly by the Prime Minister, belongs to Sheldon Edelson.

It is also the only currently newspaper that is free no charge, while others- Yediot, Ma'ariv, and Ha'aretz, are to be paid for. For years, it was easy to get your hand on the newspapers, because they were delievered free in public places, and is one of the only high-published newspapers that is viewed as rightist.

Anyhow, they voted to make it "pay-per-view", and many criticized it. First, the parties that point out non-stop how expensive is that, living in Israel, vote to pay for free newspapers, it makes you raise an eyebrow. Second, those same parties cry about how Israel should be first thing first a democracy, but then go shutting mouths of the right, also questionable.

And last, it's a bummer, I liked the word puzzles, now I won't get those anymore...

I'm confused - aren't newspapers independent entities able to make their own financing decisions? We have a variety of paid for and free papers, for example - all kinds and the government has no influence on them in regards to cost or content. Left or right or middle of the road or whacko - there's something for everyone.

I'm not sure whatever the reason is, I just know that Netanyahu used to up till now "sponsor" the newspaper, and it was given free no charge in every public place. Now it won't happen, because the Knesset objects it being free, it has nothing to do with the newspaper's ability to stand independent or not.

We have National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting System which are publically funded and free to everyone. Rightwingers complain about it being too leftwing and often try to defund it. It sounds kind of like that is similar to the free newspapers you have maybe?

Channels 1 and 23 in Israel are public and free to anyone, and nobody goes against them, since they're considered not politically biased towards any side (unlike channels 2 and 10). There were attempts to shift them a bit but right now you still can find free- public TV. So I dunno.

 

[Lipush]

They voted to close the newspaper "Israel HaYom," it was/is newspaper that is viewed as rightist, suiting the views of the Prime minister, in Israel some call it the "Bibiton", because it is sponsered directly by the Prime Minister, belongs to Sheldon Edelson.

It is also the only currently newspaper that is free no charge, while others- Yediot, Ma'ariv, and Ha'aretz, are to be paid for. For years, it was easy to get your hand on the newspapers, because they were delievered free in public places, and is one of the only high-published newspapers that is viewed as rightist.

Anyhow, they voted to make it "pay-per-view", and many criticized it. First, the parties that point out non-stop how expensive is that, living in Israel, vote to pay for free newspapers, it makes you raise an eyebrow. Second, those same parties cry about how Israel should be first thing first a democracy, but then go shutting mouths of the right, also questionable.

And last, it's a bummer, I liked the word puzzles, now I won't get those anymore...

I'm confused - aren't newspapers independent entities able to make their own financing decisions? We have a variety of paid for and free papers, for example - all kinds and the government has no influence on them in regards to cost or content. Left or right or middle of the road or whacko - there's something for everyone.

I'm not sure whatever the reason is, I just know that Netanyahu used to up till now "sponsor" the newspaper, and it was given free no charge in every public place. Now it won't happen, because the Knesset objects it being free, it has nothing to do with the newspaper's ability to stand independent or not.

I am totally against banning the 'Free Press'....

This, however, is a concern... "Netanyahu used to up till now "sponsor" the newspaper"

A prime minister of ANY country "sponsoring" a newspaper doesn't make it "Free Press"...

It becomes "State Press"... And, to be honest, it matters little how much "sponsorship" the prime minister gives, it's still "State Press"

I see your point. However, it still doesn't mean the public cannot relate to the "state press". And it still doesn't mean free speech isn't abused here. And those who abuse that free speech are also the ones who cry about Netanyahu going against democracy.

I see double standards here.

Personally - I have issues with government sponsorship of media...as opposed to public funding. But it's not as if Israel doesn't have a bunch of privately owned media outlets that provide the news so I'm not sure it's an issue. In many countries with state-owned media - the only legal media is what the state supports and there is heavy state censorship of media. But there are also lot of countries where there is state owned media alongside private media as well.

But it's not like people don't have a choice with what to read. You can find most of Israel's newspapers reachable, depends on your personal views. Israel Today it's the only one that's free, that is.

 

[Beelzebub]

On September 15, 1935, the Nazi government passed two new racial laws at their annual NSDAP Reich Party Congress in Nuremberg, Germany. These two laws (the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law to Protect German Blood and Honor) became collectively known as the Nuremberg Laws. These laws took German citizenship away from Jews and outlawed both marriage and sex between Jews and non-Jews. Unlike historical antisemitism, the Nuremberg Laws defined Jewishness by heredity (race) rather than by practice (religion).

Shocking.

What kind of modern state could define a religious people this way?
And to put laws in place to give or take rights based on their presumed Jewishness or lack of it?

The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 - Nazi Laws Against Jews

There's more:

There were two major components to the Reich Citizenship Law. The first component stated that:

• Anyone who enjoys the protection of the Reich is considered to be a subject of it and is therefore obligated to the Reich.
• Nationality is determined by the Reich and state nationality laws.

Sounds like the claim of Israel that all Judaism belongs to Israel and all Jews are naturally citizens as soon as they arrive.

The Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor
The second law announced on September 15 was motivated by the Nazi’s desire to ensure the existence of a “pure” German nation for eternity. A major component of the law was that those with “German-related blood” were not allowed to marry Jews or have sexual relations with them. Marriages that had occurred prior to the passage of this law would remain in effect; however, German citizens were encouraged to divorce their existing Jewish partners. Only a few chose to do so.

Surely Israel doesn't do similar?
Jews, Christians and Muslims are free to marry in Israel without any interference or sanction from the state, no?

____________________________

It is looking very much like Israel law was lifted directly from the 1930's Nationality Laws.
Interesting.

Wow, comparison to Nazi Germany.

How original

Yep. The ease and appropriateness with which this is done, should be something to make Zionists stop and think. Yet somehow they don't.

Do you suppose the have known all along?

 

[Phoenall]

Israel Approves New Controversial Nationality Bill News teleSUR

Opponents say the new bill will further discriminate against Israel's minority populations and cause a stronger rift between Israelis and Palestinians.

The Israeli cabinet approved a controversial new bill on Sunday that will officially enshrine into law Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, undermining the rights of minorities in the country.
Opponents of the bill, including cabinet ministers and rights groups, have called the bill racist as it defines “national rights” as being for Jews only. Currently, Christians and Muslims make up about 20 percent of Israel's population.

The bill will recognize Israel's Jewish character above all others and institutionalize Jewish law, using it as an inspiration for legislation. It will also de-list Arabic as a second official language.

According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, everyone would have equal civil rights, however, “there are national rights only for the Jewish people - a flag, anthem, the right of every Jew to immigrate to Israel and other national symbols.”

The bill titled “Israel, the Nation-State of the Jewish People,” was passed 14-6, while cabinet members who opposed it called it extreme, and effaces the democratic nature of the state.

It also undermines the possibility of a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, at a time when relations between the two sides have been increasingly tense.

Zahava Gal-On – chairwoman of Meretz, a secular party that advocates for a two-state solution – said that Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition partners are committing a “crime against Israeli democracy, and will be responsible for one of the blackest stains on Israeli law.”

According to Netanyahu, the bill is necessary because too many people have been challenging the notion of Israel as a Jewish state.
“There are many who are challenging Israel’s character as the national state of the Jewish people. The Palestinians refuse to recognize this and there is also opposition from within,” he said.

“Neither do I understand those who are calling for two states for two peoples but who also oppose anchoring this in law. They are pleased to recognize a Palestinian national state but strongly oppose a Jewish national state.”

A Palestinian is a Palestinian national state and Palestinians comprise Muslims, Christians, Jews though the Jews are now Israeli. It's not a Muslim national state. It's not a Christian national state.

Israel was an Israeli national state - with a pluralistic population dominated by Jewish religion and ethinicity. It recognizes itself as a Jewish state. Why do they need a law enshrining one religion like this? I think it's going to further inflame an already bad situation.

'Why do they need a law enshirining one religion like this'?

Because folks from the Liberal left constantly try to erase the Jewish identity of the state, turning it into state of all ethnic groups, and that was not the vision of Ben Gurion and Hertzl, both of them, btw, were Liberals.

Except you have a substantial minority of non-Jews as well. You have a substantial and recognized Jewish majority and are internationally recognized as a Jewish state in culture and governance and population. It's de-facto. The only purpose of that this legislation serves is to further DIVIDE your nation in terms of rights and citizenship. You like to claim you have all these minorities and they have equal rights etc etc and then you also want to have a law in place that reminds them they are not equal.

Just for example, the US is Christian majority demographically and culturally. The primary holidays that are state recognized are usually Christian. However - cities, towns and communities that have substantial populations of other religions also recognize other holidays. We don't have a law and would never have a law that would state only Christian holidays, symbols etc can be recognized in what is a Christian dominant but very pluralistic society. The US though, does have a clearly marked separation of church and state that Israel does not - but it's not just that. It's respecting the traditions and beliefs of others.

Let me ask you this. Mrs. Livni pointed out in her objection to the law that since the Jewish character of the state is declared in the Independence Scroll, what is believed to be Israel's "first constitution", then there is no need for it to be constructed by law.

But the scroll also states that Israel, by giving full rights to evetyone, should be democratic, and those things ARE insured by the Basic Law of human freedom and dignity. Why was there a need for that basic law, if all this was ensured in the scroll? If there is something stating that Israel is democratic, let is be also be stated it's JEWISH.

It's only fair...

Why is it only fair? Can it be truly democratic and also legally Jewish with a law that divides rights along religious lines?

It is undeniably Jewish. Why does it need a further and very divisive law that is not well regarded by the nation's many minorities and by it's secular community?

What rights does the proposed law divide along religious lines then ?

Does it deny non Jews justice, life, a home, freedom, religion, representation, education and health care.

 

[Phoenall]

Why don't you support America instead of Israel. You are one traitorous piece of shit. We are a Christian country Hoss, we believe in Jesus Christ, the Jews don't.

As a Christian, you should know the first basic thing God said regarding nations. "I shall curse those who curse thee, and bless those who bless thee."

You're a Christian?

If you are, going against the Jews is betraying God.

Betraying God, or betraying America? Mhmmm. I think you're doing both.

As a Christian the Old Testament means less than squat as our Jesus Christ said:

in Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

And, Heb. 8:13 which says, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."

I would not bring up our bible Hoss.

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."

Thessalonians 2:14-6

And islam also denies Jesus so why aren't you coming down as hard on them, because you are as much a Christian as I am a heathen muslim that's why. I am a Christian and as such I can see were the holes are in my beliefs, starting with the obvious one of saying Jesus is God when he is no such thing. He was an enlightened man who lived in troubled times that preached peace and understanding well before Ghandi was born. You should heed his words more and read the lessons from him in your Bible. Not the Greek and Roman interpretations of the scriptures written 200 years after his death in Masada. ( the crucifixion and resurrection are a fairy story, and you need to read the account given to understand what really happened )